Nutrition Publications - Friedman School & HNRCA

Unwarranted Blocking of Local Public Health Action on SSBs?

Updated Thursday, August 31, 2017

NEW YORK and BOSTON (Aug. 29, 2017)—Federal, state, and local governments each have a role to play in protecting health. Federal and state government, however, can alter or hinder state and local activity through a legal mechanism called preemption – when a higher level of government blocks the action of a lower level of government. An increase in state preemption of local food policies led a research team to assess whether preemption of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) by the federal government would be likely based on Congress’s historical rationales for preempting taxes.

SSBs are associated with obesity, diabetes, stroke and heart disease. As of June 2017, eight U.S. cities have enacted SSB taxes aimed at reducing consumption, and several other states and municipalities are considering them. Excise taxes can reduce consumption, improve health, and raise revenue for budget-constrained governments.

The research team, from New York University’s College of Global Public Health (NYU CGPH) and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts, reviewed legislative histories of federal bills and laws that had a central and express purpose of preempting state taxes. The goal was to determine if historical rationales for preempting taxes applied in the case of SSB taxes.

The study, published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that Congress historically preempted state taxes to ensure they did not interfere with the goals of national programs or the proper functioning of interstate commerce. The authors found that neither of these justifications applies to SSB excise taxes.